An Education Stimulus Package?
Could a National Education Stimulus Package help us create the schools we need to meet the needs of 21st Century learners?
Across the country significant school improvement initiatives may be shelved or cut as a result of drastic tax revenue and education funding shortfalls. If an education stimulus package were to be enacted, which of these initiatives are of the highest priority? How could they be quickly implemented or scaled-up, and how much would they cost?
Looking beyond the need to fix the schools we have, how can we create the schools we need? How can we transform schools into genuine learning organizations that develop students who are ready for successful participation in a 21st century economy and a complex world?
If you could create an education stimulus initiative, what would it be? Think expansively. How would you apply a rapid infusion of education funding? Your stimulus ideas should be accelerators that generate jobs in education that can significantly improve the participation of students in college, work, and community affairs. It should be possible to ramp your ideas up quickly – within two years - with large-scale investments that produce near-term benefits that will be sustained over time.
Briefly share your ideas – two or three paragraphs – that explain the concept, its rationale, benefits, and approximate cost. And then join your colleagues across the country in a dialogue about how we can make this happen.
Labels: 21st century education, bailout, economy, stimulus
posted by NCTAF at
12:00 PM
6 Comments:
Creating an Education Stimulus Package:
Recommendations to the Obama Transition Team
Charles R. Coble, Partner
The Third Mile Group
Need/Opportunity #1: Resource Capital development
Move America’s public schools dramatically into technology-based schools while simultaneously advancing teacher knowledge and skills and nurturing student development of 21st century workforce skills.
Recommendations
(a) Invest in the rapid development and dissemination of video’s on UTube and Facebook (and encourage freelance video’s by students and teachers) that show parents, educators and decision-makers what exciting learning environments look like in real schools across America - and supplement the video’s with commentary about what the viewers see and how to move ‘their’ schools to these directions;
(b) Make substantial investments in technology infrastructure (latest computers in sufficient numbers with wireless connectivity) in all K-12 schools, nationwide;
(c) Invest heavily in teacher/principal professional development in leading edge uses of technology to both accelerate and remediate learning and assessment.
Need/Opportunity #2: Human Capital Development
Create teaching as an exciting and attractive option for people with career interest or for other adults who currently envision a more limited timeframe in teaching.
Recommendations
(a) Provide teacher preparation “replication and adaptation” competitive funding for colleges and universities who wish to adopt new “proven” models for attracting a broader range of young-to-older adults into teaching high need subjects and/or students (such as UTeach - science/math teachers, Boston Residency Program - recent college grads, NC TEACH - mid-career professionals, etc.
(b) Provide R&D funding to the further development of new models for cross-generational teaching residency models for teacher preparation, induction and development – models that reject the ‘stand-alone’ model for teaching and instead embraces more cooperative teaching models.
(c) Implement intensive summer and academic year programs that provide intensive training for competitively selected teams of principals and teachers and parents who are ready to shift their schools to 21st Century new model for teaching and learning.
Creating an Education Stimulus Package:
Recommendations to the Obama Transition Team
Charles R. Coble, Partner
The Third Mile Group
Need/Opportunity #1: New Types of Schooling
Move America’s public schools dramatically into technology-based schools while simultaneously advancing teacher knowledge and skills and nurturing student development of 21st century workforce skills.
Recommendations
(a) Invest in the rapid development and dissemination of video’s on UTube and Facebook (and encourage freelance video’s by students and teachers) that show parents, educators and decision-makers what exciting learning environments look like in real schools across America - and supplement the video’s with commentary about what the viewers see and how to move ‘their’ schools to these directions;
(b) Make substantial investments in technology infrastructure (latest computers in sufficient numbers with wireless connectivity) in all K-12 schools, nationwide;
(c) Invest heavily in teacher/principal professional development in leading edge uses of technology to both accelerate and remediate learning and assessment.
Need/Opportunity #2: New Types of Teaching
Create teaching as an exciting and attractive option for people with career interest or for other adults who currently envision a more limited timeframe in teaching.
Recommendations
(a) Provide teacher preparation “replication and adaptation” competitive funding for colleges and universities who wish to adopt new “proven” models for attracting a broader range of young-to-older adults into teaching high need subjects and/or students (such as UTeach - science/math teachers, Boston Residency Program - recent college grads, NC TEACH - mid-career professionals, etc.
(b) Provide R&D funding to the further development of new models for cross-generational teaching residency models for teacher preparation, induction and development – models that reject the ‘stand-alone’ model for teaching and instead embraces more cooperative teaching models.
(c) Implement intensive summer and academic year programs that provide intensive training for competitively selected teams of principals and teachers and parents who are ready to shift their schools to 21st Century new model for teaching and learning.
Three Suggestions for How to Make Investments
to Improve the Quality of Teacher Education
1. The urban teacher residency model that now exists in Boston and Chicago is very attractive as an alternative to the many fast track programs that put people in charge of classrooms with little or no preparation. This is an area that has already been targeted for funding in the reauthorized higher education act, but I want to say anyway that I think that this approach has much potential if we invest in it sufficiently. It is clear that college and university-based programs will never be able to provide for all of the needs of school districts and we need to directly counter the problem of the inequitable distribution of prepared teachers to schools attended by students from different backgrounds. The residencies potentially offer a much higher quality of preparation for teachers going into hard to staff schools (and potential for greater stability in staffing) than many of the fast tracks that now supply these schools. University involvement in these residencies such as in the current program in Chicago can potentially have a positive impact on the issue discussed below on better connecting pre-service the preparation of teachers to the complexities of schools and teacher expertise.
2. I also think from an ed school perspective that money from the states to support high quality school university partnerships that met certain criteria that we know matter would be a good investment. University-based teacher education needs to become more connected to the complexities of schools and needs to learn how to take better advantage of the expertise of good K-12 teachers in the preparation of teachers. There need to be more incentives and resources for universities to create stronger connections between campus and schools in pre-service preparation and we have a variety of good models for better integrating campus and school preparation that now exist on a small scale that could be spread. If universities want to be taken seriously as a factor in pre-service teacher education in the future, they will need to change how they do the work of teacher education in relation to schools. Another aspect of this issue is the moral obligation that exists at least in public institutions of higher education to contribute to ongoing school renewal and to focusing a significant amount of educational research and continuing professional development support on helping schools within a collaborative context to address the core problems of practice with which they are faced. Currently much educational research and graduate offerings for school staff are not linked to and do not build upon efforts already underway in schools to improve.
3. Finally I think that money to support raising the quality of the performance assessment of teaching is needed. We have staked so much in teacher education on performance assessment but the quality of most of what goes on is very poor. Efforts like those currently underway in CA to develop a high quality performance assessment in PACT are good, but resources for institutions to be able to use these higher quality assessments that require training for scorers etc must be part of the strategy. There is a lot of concern right now in some of the CSU campuses about taking on the additional work associated with a higher quality performance assessment while their budgets are being continually cut. We cannot have high quality performance assessments in teacher education or sustain high quality programs without the investment of resources that are needed to support them. This is true regardless for all pathways into teaching.
Ken Zeichner
Hoefs-Bascom Professor of Teacher Education
University of Wisconsin-Madison
1. Place two teachers in the K-3 classrooms of all schools failing to meet AYP. This could be transformative!!!
2. Teachers need instructional coaches. Adding coaches to the culture of schools and professional development will go a long way toward improving student achievement. The coaching must address "literacy" in a broad way. Literacy here would be more for the development of 21st Century Skills--reading, writing, numeracy, along with informational and technological literacy, critical thinking, and self-direction. Add to that a dose of Global perspective and you have the kind of coaching I would advocate. Teachers also need to understand (from their leaders) that coaching is about on-going learning, retaining a creative edge, keeping current in an ever-changing world. Coaches would have an intimate knowledge of the skills they hope to help teachers develop as well as interpersonal skills that would allow them to develop trusting relationships among those with whom they work. Teachers work incredibly hard. If they are expected to do what we claim they ought to be able to do, then they NEED REAL SUPPORT.
3. Revamp the current philosophy regarding school and teacher accountability. I suggest requiring AYP under NCLB to be determined
using a growth-based assessments (NWEA, Acuity, etc.) that show improvement/progress rather than the narrow snap-shot assessments like
ISTEP (our state test). Growth-based student assessments are regarded as being to expensive to be used to determine AYP. However, if the funding was there, this could not only have an impact on student achievement, but also on teacher morale and the general public's perception of the American education system. In conjunction with that, use instructional coaches to work with schools who do not meet AYP rather
than employing measures such as requiring the option for students to change schools or the staff being replaced. These instructional coaches
could also train teachers on how to incorporate technology into their teaching in order to better prepare students for the 21st century economy.
4. Assign and provide training for Teacher-Trainers at schools or school corporations to be lead teachers in charge of professional development initiatives for informing instruction based on 21st century needs for learning. (Using a train-the-trainer model) The teacher-trainer should be bringing back PD around cooperative learning and project-based learning, infusing technology into instruction, and using formative assessments throughout the school year to guide instruction. The PD for the teacher-trainers could be offered through the Educational Service Centers throughout the state in conjunction with the Curriculum and Instruction department at the DOE - who should be a primary resource for structuring and planning this PD and providing resources to schools. Benefits are directly related to the PD provided, and the costs are primarily stipends and/or adding teachers/staff to fill the void made by utilizing current employees, as well as staffing up the service centers and DOE.
Dr. David Dresslar
Executive Director
University of Indianapolis-CELL
Here are a few modest thoughts:
1. An innovation fund, managed not by government but by a consortium of leaders who understand the intersection of education and individual and collective competitiveness, and who can make effectively the same decisions in the educational environment that venture capitalists make elsewhere, who could dole out the fund to create new schools; to create new enterprises (government, not-for-profit, NGO, etc.) to educate and train new teachers (and/or retrain current teachers); to work in communities with struggling schools to realign the school with the community and then to retool the teaching capacity of the school; to train counselors; to recreate the leadership capacity in schools; etc. Let the market of ideas meet the capacity of government funded capital to innovate new mechanisms and organizations (and thus jobs and educational accelerators with long-term benefit, your parameters). The RFPs would by design be limited to TRANSITIONAL needs. We used a similar approach in Indiana on new high school models, and the market responded. One of our requirements was that the plans had to fit the school corporation’s EXISTING cash flows post-transition, so we did not have the old “great until the money runs out” effect. Another requirement was that the approach had to reflect an alignment of the educators and educational environment with the community’s aspirations for competitiveness, quality of life, and economic vitality, so that teaching was once again an act OF community as opposed to being separate from it. This fund would be by design focused on the things that need to be done to move the leverage elements of the system (thinking particularly of educators and their leaders) to the awareness and capacity to lead and cause learning more effectively.
2. A technology and teaching retrofit fund, with the narrow but critical purpose of helping those schools whose models are focused on effective learning by digital generation students achieve the transition of the learning environment, both equipment and personnel. Make the fund’s awards competitive, with tight parameters: clarity and effectiveness of the learning model; high, bright and clear expectations for students; a demonstrated commitment to (and logic for utilization of) the technology; and some effective “claw back” controls to ensure the transition leads to the effective learning environment. This has technology design, manufacture, implementation and similar jobs potential; it has construction jobs potential; it has a short-term life and a transitional purpose. And limit the retrofit awards to those schools or communities (encourage new models as well) who are prepared to retrain their teachers toward the sort of new learning environment that justifies the retrofit, NOT solely in use of technology but in teaching for learning using the demonstrated effective practices and parameters from NCTAF, NCTQ, etc.
3. A new schools of education fund, using the same model as the innovation fund but with the express and focused purpose of starting up new ways to train new teachers and retrain existing ones. Require that the proposals do NOT come from existing schools of education, so the fund both creates new jobs in education and serves to create multiple “skunk works” possibilities. Provide funding to trusted organizations – NCTAF, Carnegie, NCTQ, etc. – outside the government to support the development of such new teacher-creating schools (thus accelerating the process of furthering good approaches deemed worthy of funding and adding a second layer of transitional education jobs with long term benefit). Don’t limit the models to existing school of education models but encourage innovation in the way a new effective teacher is created.
4. A STEM capacity and boot camp fund, designed to provide resources to add capacity to those efforts around the country worthy of support who are trying to increase the capacity (subject matter, pedagogy or both) of existing teachers or new teachers to increase student awareness and interest, student learning levels and STEM achievement across the country. Again use competitive bidding to make investments from the fund, and solicit the RFPs with a stated purpose of creating capacity to ramp up – accelerate – the upgrade of STEM teaching capacity so that we accomplish it across all schools and in all communities in 2-3 years. The investments could be made in existing programs deemed effective enough to justify it (creating layered new jobs there) and in new programs proposed to address the issue. But the boot camp aspect – intense in time and commitment, focused in content, measured for result and with reward for result – is critical. NASA’s race to the moon in 2009-10: we will have a fully trained STEM teaching capacity in all communities at all K-12 grades by August 1, 2011.
All of these use one-time government support for transitional activities that create new jobs in education that should produce long-term benefit. Once government funding is done the residual capacity created may be able to sustain itself in large part by shifting to other services for which state governments or local schools or communities would contract, lengthening the jobs, deepening the country’s educational capacity and extending the term of the resulting benefits.
None of these are worth trying without the competitive nature of the funds, without independent decision makers, without clear guidelines and strong follow up. They require a sea change in thinking and approach. Each can lever new jobs in education, on a transitional basis, with an acceleration expectation, for a defined and mission critical purpose, producing in the results they would create the capacity to drive long-term benefits, including (because they would upgrade and redirect capacity, or occasionally replace it) doing so within existing financial cash flow. They all address a retooling and uplifting of what we already pay for, so that we do not need to pay more post-transition for such capacity (leaving aside the separate issue of what teachers should and will earn once the education they create is seen in its proper light. And, most importantly, they would all stimulate the sort of educational renaissance we need.
Dave Shane
dshane@ldiltd.com
Indianapolis, Indiana
SAS CEO Jim Goodnight and I outlined our thoughts on importance of investing in education technology through the ec stimulus in a Business Week Op Ed titled "Why Obama can’t ignore education technology". http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/economic_stimulus_package/archives/2008/12/sas_goodnight_c.html
Keith Krueger
CEO
CoSN www.cosn.org
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home